Ulster vs Glasgow

First topic message reminder :

                      
Ulster Rugby v Glasgow Warriors
Saturday 11 October 2014
KO 17:05
Kingspan Stadium

Live on Sky Sports

Referee: Nigel Owens(WRU, 114th competition game)
Assistant Referees: Nigel Correll, Paul Haycock (IRFU)
Citing Commissioner: Murray White (IRFU)
TMO: Simon McDowell (IRFU)

A. Teams:

Ulster Rugby

15 Louis Ludik
14 Andrew Trimble
13 Jared Payne
12 Stuart McCloskey
11 Tommy Bowe
10 Ian Humphreys
9 Paul Marshall

1 Andrew Warwick
2 Rory Best (Captain)
3 Wiehahn Herbst
4 Alan O’Connor
5 Franco van der Merwe
6 Robbie Diack
7 Chris Henry
8 Nick Williams

16 Rob Herring
17 Callum Black
18 Bronson Ross
19 Lewis Stevenson
20 Roger Wilson
21 Michael Heaney
22 Stuart Olding
23 Craig Gilroy

Glasgow Warriors

15. Peter Murchie
14. Sean Maitland
13. Mark Bennett
12. Peter Horne
11. Tommy Seymour
10. Finn Russell
9. Henry Pyrgos

1. Gordon Reid
2. Fraser Brown
3. Euan Murray
4. Tim Swinson
5. Leone Nakarawa
6. Rob Harley
7. Chris Fusaro
8. Josh Strauss (Captain)

16. Dougie Hall
17. Jerry Yanuyanutawa
18. Zander Fagerson
19. Jonny Gray
20. Adam Ashe
21. Niko Matawalu
22. James Downey
23. Sean Lamont

B. Form - head to head:

29 Played 29
15 Wins 13
13 Losses 15
1 Draws 1
49 Tries 47
31 Conversions 33
78 Penalties 68
2 Drop Goals 7
547 Points 526
26 Avg. Age 26

C. Form - last season:

Friday 13 September 2013  
Ulster Rugby 12 - 13 Glasgow Warriors
Ravenhill Stadium

Friday 18 April 2014
Glasgow Warriors 27 - 9 Ulster Rugby
Scotstoun Stadium

They're getting a bit carried away on the Warriors forum. Apparently Nick deserved a red, as does Jackson for running into a player in an earlier game. Refs are biased. Bennett will get off because he's Irish......

For goodness guys catch a grip, and quit moaning.

Edit: ahem....that should read O'Connor, and not Bennett.

I have to admit, that an arm round someone's throat is definitely something you would be aware of. If I had my arm around somebodies throat, I would certainly be conscious of it. I'd be well aware of the potential dangers.

I don't think there's any question that O'Connors arm was around the throat.

And it's my opinion that any human being would be well aware of this.

So... The question is - just how far does the aggression/adrenalin/desire to win take us in the heat of the moment?

That why the law is there, to keep players under control.

The thing that baffles me is that neither the ref nor the commentary team seemed at all concerned with questioning how a player became unconscious.

I mean, Play was stopped for 5 minutes maybe more - surely Owen's could have asked to see the replay even just for something to do.

Also, since we are at it. Let's talk about the Ludik being tackled in the air incident. Regardless of your opinions, Owen's blatantly threw the IRB guidelines out the window and refused to enforce the law. The english comentator actually said "You just can't be expected to pull out at that speed'. Isn't that exactly what the argument was last season with Payne? Yet everyone in England said he was still responsible.

The player did not compete in the air. He occupied the space underneath the jumper. He MADE CONTACT WITH A PLAYER IN THE AIR.
By the rules its a yellow card AT LEAST. This isn't my opinion, it's the IRB's. And Owens effectively did not carry out the duties of his job by being lenient.

There's no point in rules, unless they are enforced across the board. If a ref disagrees, he should complain about it, not just decide to go rogue and refuse to enforce it in his games. What would happen if a ref decided he didn't think forward passes were worth stopping play over? Would he be allowed to just ignore them?

clivemcl wrote:Also, since we are at it. Let's talk about the Ludik being tackled in the air incident. Regardless of your opinions, Owen's blatantly threw the IRB guidelines out the window and refused to enforce the law. The english comentator actually said "You just can't be expected to pull out at that speed'. Isn't that exactly what the argument was last season with Payne? Yet everyone in England said he was still responsible.

The player did not compete in the air. He occupied the space underneath the jumper. He MADE CONTACT WITH A PLAYER IN THE AIR.
By the rules its a yellow card AT LEAST. This isn't my opinion, it's the IRB's. And Owens effectively did not carry out the duties of his job by being lenient.

There's no point in rules, unless they are enforced across the board. If a ref disagrees, he should complain about it, not just decide to go rogue and refuse to enforce it in his games. What would happen if a ref decided he didn't think forward passes were worth stopping play over? Would he be allowed to just ignore them?

Then Paul Marshall should have probably been sent to the bin as well?

reallybored wrote:

clivemcl wrote:Also, since we are at it. Let's talk about the Ludik being tackled in the air incident. Regardless of your opinions, Owen's blatantly threw the IRB guidelines out the window and refused to enforce the law. The english comentator actually said "You just can't be expected to pull out at that speed'. Isn't that exactly what the argument was last season with Payne? Yet everyone in England said he was still responsible.

The player did not compete in the air. He occupied the space underneath the jumper. He MADE CONTACT WITH A PLAYER IN THE AIR.
By the rules its a yellow card AT LEAST. This isn't my opinion, it's the IRB's. And Owens effectively did not carry out the duties of his job by being lenient.

There's no point in rules, unless they are enforced across the board. If a ref disagrees, he should complain about it, not just decide to go rogue and refuse to enforce it in his games. What would happen if a ref decided he didn't think forward passes were worth stopping play over? Would he be allowed to just ignore them?

Then Paul Marshall should have probably been sent to the bin as well?

Look, if you are expecting the usual schoolboy boobie for tat you often get on here, then I'm sorry to disappoint. If you think I'm being biased, you are incorrect. The rulebook specifically refers to opposing players. So let's not turn this argument into a farce.

If you believe Owen's made the right call, then you join him (and I) in disagreement with the IRB rulebook. But theres no point in having a rulebook if refs are allowed to pick and choose. So all the people on here (and Drico on twitter) who are praising Owen's 'common sense' - what's your plan? Just hope that ref's ignore the rules you don't agree with??

The fact of the matter is - Owen's did not carry out his job the way his bosses expect him to. My boss at work wouldn't suffer that kind of insubordination from me. SO how does he get away with it? The whole thing is a joke.

Hey, Clive. Good to see you back.

I have more or less settled in my mind what happened with Bennett. I think O'Connor had his left arm pinned either on, or close to, the ball. Elbow pointing down and forearm up at a sharp angle close to the neck area, but not illegally so. The reason I say this is because nobody, including the TJ, reacted. O'Connor's right arm was trapped under the right arm of Bennett. The maul was pulled down by the Glasgow 7, and down goes O'Connor with Bennett on top, and Rory on top of Bennett. It's more than possible that the forearm of O'Connor was then trapped, maybe even pushed higher, under the weight of Rory, and pressing on the neck area of Bennett.

Not sure what action the citing commission would take if the above is accurate.

Jees things have escalated

Nick Williams was no where close to a red but Lamont most definately was.
There is no way to prove if it was O'Connor's arm the caused Bennett's blackout or if it was the combined pressure of everyone involved in the maul resulting from the choke tackle. How he threw Bennett from the ruck is irrelevant as he obviously was unaware the man was unconscious (try not taking my comments re: ragdolls out of context jimbopip, unless you're Max Clifford in which case it's slopping out time Max).

Those are the simple facts like them or not.

reallybored wrote:

clivemcl wrote:Also, since we are at it. Let's talk about the Ludik being tackled in the air incident. Regardless of your opinions, Owen's blatantly threw the IRB guidelines out the window and refused to enforce the law. The english comentator actually said "You just can't be expected to pull out at that speed'. Isn't that exactly what the argument was last season with Payne? Yet everyone in England said he was still responsible.

The player did not compete in the air. He occupied the space underneath the jumper. He MADE CONTACT WITH A PLAYER IN THE AIR.
By the rules its a yellow card AT LEAST. This isn't my opinion, it's the IRB's. And Owens effectively did not carry out the duties of his job by being lenient.

There's no point in rules, unless they are enforced across the board. If a ref disagrees, he should complain about it, not just decide to go rogue and refuse to enforce it in his games. What would happen if a ref decided he didn't think forward passes were worth stopping play over? Would he be allowed to just ignore them?

Then Paul Marshall should have probably been sent to the bin as well?

Instances like Saturday are what make an ass of the rulebook, you can take your own teammate out and maybe end their career because you aren't aware of your surroundings and not be punished yet you touch any opposition player in anyway and your penalised, if player safety was paramount it would cover all circumstances

We will have to see what the panel decide and what they have access to. Anything else is irrelevant. On what we have there is no proof but perhaps there will be more available to the citing panel

I’ve not seen the incident, so feel free to ignore this post, but if a player is rendered unconscious by something, it’s probably worth a look to find out what that was.  Not implying any blame or guilt on O’Connor here, just from a safety point of view it’s surely worth the citing commission having a look, as they quite possibly have access to more camera angles than the rest of us.

With any luck it was a total fluke accident, something  that could only happen once in a million times and we can all move on, if it wasn’t (and I can’t stress IF enough) then action should be taken either against the player, if he is found guilty of doing it deliberately, or in terms of looking at the rules to see if they need to be amended to ensure this is unlikely to happen again.

I have no real stake in the game here, but if one of my team's players accidentally or otherwise caused a player to lose consciousness, I don't think I would have any beef if the other team decided to cite that player.  Hopefully this can be resolved quickly with minimal fuss and both sets of fans can get back on with the mutual respect you both seem to have for each other.

EWT Spoons wrote:I’ve not seen the incident, so feel free to ignore this post, but if a player is rendered unconscious by something, it’s probably worth a look to find out what that was.  Not implying any blame or guilt on O’Connor here, just from a safety point of view it’s surely worth the citing commission having a look, as they quite possibly have access to more camera angles than the rest of us.

With any luck it was a total fluke accident, something  that could only happen once in a million times and we can all move on, if it wasn’t (and I can’t stress IF enough) then action should be taken either against the player, if he is found guilty of doing it deliberately, or in terms of looking at the rules to see if they need to be amended to ensure this is unlikely to happen again.

I have no real stake in the game here, but if one of my team's players accidentally or otherwise caused a player to lose consciousness, I don't think I would have any beef if the other team decided to cite that player.  Hopefully this can be resolved quickly with minimal fuss and both sets of fans can get back on with the mutual respect you both seem to have for each other.

Well said Spoons!

MrsP wrote:

EWT Spoons wrote:I’ve not seen the incident, so feel free to ignore this post, but if a player is rendered unconscious by something, it’s probably worth a look to find out what that was.  Not implying any blame or guilt on O’Connor here, just from a safety point of view it’s surely worth the citing commission having a look, as they quite possibly have access to more camera angles than the rest of us.

With any luck it was a total fluke accident, something  that could only happen once in a million times and we can all move on, if it wasn’t (and I can’t stress IF enough) then action should be taken either against the player, if he is found guilty of doing it deliberately, or in terms of looking at the rules to see if they need to be amended to ensure this is unlikely to happen again.

I have no real stake in the game here, but if one of my team's players accidentally or otherwise caused a player to lose consciousness, I don't think I would have any beef if the other team decided to cite that player.  Hopefully this can be resolved quickly with minimal fuss and both sets of fans can get back on with the mutual respect you both seem to have for each other.

Well said Spoons!

+1

The Owens call was the right one re. Lamont.

Notch wrote:The Owens call was the right one re. Lamont.

'Right' Notch? As in you believe it was sensible? Or Right as in following the rules?

If you think Owen's followed the rules, you need to check the laws.

Well said indeed Spoons.

By the letter of the law Owens should have been reversing the penalty and awarding at least a yellow card. His decision was however the correct one indeed and sanity prevailed. It's quite obvious that Lamont was involved in Ludik's upending but it was also obvious that he never intended it to happen. Owens is the best referee on the planet IMO and proved it with that decision.

To be fair an Ulster player was as much to blame as Lamont for the Ludik upending...

Pete330v2 wrote:Well said indeed Spoons.

By the letter of the law Owens should have been reversing the penalty and awarding at least a yellow card. His decision was however the correct one indeed and sanity prevailed. It's quite obvious that Lamont was involved in Ludik's upending but it was also obvious that he never intended it to happen. Owens is the best referee on the planet IMO and proved it with that decision.

Strange that you can be described as being the 'best' by effectively NOT doing your job.

Look, don't misinterpret my stance here. I'm not saying Owen's is wrong - the opposite in fact - but it makes a farce of the sport if something is allowed to be in the rulebook but selectively ignored by some of the law enforcers (refs). A complete farce.

I think we should just be grateful there's at least one ref with empathy for the game

I agree Clive and the laws need to be clarified in certain areas such as incidents like this.
If there is obviously no intent (despite what some said about running full pelt into the danger zone where a player may be taking to the air) then a referee should be using his judgement in deciding that it was clearly accidental, it's what they are there for......or at least used to be.

clivemcl wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Well said indeed Spoons.

By the letter of the law Owens should have been reversing the penalty and awarding at least a yellow card. His decision was however the correct one indeed and sanity prevailed. It's quite obvious that Lamont was involved in Ludik's upending but it was also obvious that he never intended it to happen. Owens is the best referee on the planet IMO and proved it with that decision.

Strange that you can be described as being the 'best' by effectively NOT doing your job.

Look, don't misinterpret my stance here. I'm not saying Owen's is wrong - the opposite in fact - but it makes a farce of the sport if something is allowed to be in the rulebook but selectively ignored by some of the law enforcers (refs). A complete farce.

Yes, that was the problem with Warbuton's famous sending off - it wasn't that the referee wasn't right by the letter of the law - it's that a number of other referees famously had not applied the rules in the same way in previous weeks.

Owens is the fooking man, though. You can't criticise him. It's like criticising Obama, Clooney and Sir Alex Ferguson all at the same time. Completely impossible.

I tend to agree. Don't get me wrong in the midst of the game when the drinks in and wit out I will criticise him (and like all refs he is human and will make mistakes) but you have to ask yourself would you rather watch the game as reffed by Nigel or by Garces or Fitzgibbon or the like

clivemcl wrote:

Notch wrote:The Owens call was the right one re. Lamont.

'Right' Notch? As in you believe it was sensible? Or Right as in following the rules?

If you think Owen's followed the rules, you need to check the laws.

The laws I have been violently disagreeing with ever since the Payne incident? I have been pretty clear and consistent. If there is foul play punish it, if there is an accident- they happen, unfortunately, and get on with the game. This applies equally to the O'Connor incident.

The laws as they stand are wrong, and Nigel Owens is right. If we had had Owens against Saracens the game wouldn't have been ruined. There is never any need under any circumstances to give any player a red card for an accidental collision. If Lamont had got a red card, it would have been unfair on him and unfair on Glasgow so I'm happy. Although it would be interesting to see which decision they were whinging about more.

It is frustrating that if we had another ref that would have been a red card. But thats the fault of the other refs not of Owens who got it right.

Notch wrote:

clivemcl wrote:

Notch wrote:The Owens call was the right one re. Lamont.

'Right' Notch? As in you believe it was sensible? Or Right as in following the rules?

If you think Owen's followed the rules, you need to check the laws.

The laws I have been violently disagreeing with ever since the Payne incident? I have been pretty clear and consistent. If there is foul play punish it, if there is an accident- they happen, unfortunately, and get on with the game. This applies equally to the O'Connor incident.

The laws as they stand are wrong, and Nigel Owens is right. If we had had Owens against Saracens the game wouldn't have been ruined. There is never any need under any circumstances to give any player a red card for an accidental collision. If Lamont had got a red card, it would have been unfair on him and unfair on Glasgow so I'm happy. Although it would be interesting to see which decision they were whinging about more.

It is frustrating that if we had another ref that would have been a red card. But thats the fault of the other refs not of Owens who got it right.

Notch, the refs job isn't to make it up as they go along though. Like them or not the rules are open to interpretation not to be ignored

Rules are followed to the letter.
Laws are open to interpretation.

I agree they should not therefore be ignored but sometimes common sense eclipses what's written in the laws. Refs need to be allowed to judge intent especially with video replays and TMO consultation.

Every team in the Pro12 should have a big screen at their ground.

marty2086 wrote:

Notch wrote:

clivemcl wrote:

Notch wrote:The Owens call was the right one re. Lamont.

'Right' Notch? As in you believe it was sensible? Or Right as in following the rules?

If you think Owen's followed the rules, you need to check the laws.

The laws I have been violently disagreeing with ever since the Payne incident? I have been pretty clear and consistent. If there is foul play punish it, if there is an accident- they happen, unfortunately, and get on with the game. This applies equally to the O'Connor incident.

The laws as they stand are wrong, and Nigel Owens is right. If we had had Owens against Saracens the game wouldn't have been ruined. There is never any need under any circumstances to give any player a red card for an accidental collision. If Lamont had got a red card, it would have been unfair on him and unfair on Glasgow so I'm happy. Although it would be interesting to see which decision they were whinging about more.

It is frustrating that if we had another ref that would have been a red card. But thats the fault of the other refs not of Owens who got it right.

Notch, the refs job isn't to make it up as they go along though. Like them or not the rules are open to interpretation not to be ignored

And Nigel Owens is the one ref with the common sense to interpret them in a way that isn't going to ruin the game.

From my perspective, having viewed the video of the O'Connor incident endlessly, it is the Glasgow 7 who needs his actions scrutinised. He piles in the side of the forming maul hoping to collapse it before Owens calls 'maul'. He collapses it by pulling Bennett downwards. I would suggest that it is to blame for Bennett's injury. Clearly the Glasgow 7 would have had no idea that his action could have such a consequence, but it does seem to me that it was his decision to collapse it that caused Bennett to lose consciousness.

Notch wrote:
And Nigel Owens is the one ref with the common sense to interpret them in a way that isn't going to ruin the game.

Thats the thing you seem to fail to grasp Notch, the one interpretation he couldn't take was that it wasn't a penalty it was

Your right that its a bad law but midgame isn't the time to change them

greygoose wrote:From my perspective, having viewed the video of the O'Connor incident endlessly, it is the Glasgow 7 who needs his actions scrutinised. He piles in the side of the forming maul hoping to collapse it before Owens calls 'maul'. He collapses it by pulling Bennett downwards. I would suggest that it is to blame for Bennett's injury. Clearly the Glasgow 7 would have had no idea that his action could have such a consequence, but it does seem to me that it was his decision to collapse it that caused Bennett to lose consciousness.

I really thought I'd heard it all on these boards, but it just goes to show you that's never the case...

So you disagree? Try addressing the point then instead of sniping, would have thought a mod might have at least made an effort.

George Carlin wrote:

greygoose wrote:From my perspective, having viewed the video of the O'Connor incident endlessly, it is the Glasgow 7 who needs his actions scrutinised. He piles in the side of the forming maul hoping to collapse it before Owens calls 'maul'. He collapses it by pulling Bennett downwards. I would suggest that it is to blame for Bennett's injury. Clearly the Glasgow 7 would have had no idea that his action could have such a consequence, but it does seem to me that it was his decision to collapse it that caused Bennett to lose consciousness.

I really thought I'd heard it all on these boards, but it just goes to show you that's never the case...

Ditto George, tis a touch of madness.
Lets ban those self destructive Weegies

Did I call for a glasgow player to be banned? No. In the context of examining how Bennett ended up losing consciousness I suggested the 7s actions be examined.

Ulster to contest Alan O'Connor citing (BBC SPORTS)

Ulster will contest the citing charge handed to lock Alan O'Connor for alleged foul play in Saturday's win over Glasgow at the Kingspan Stadium.
The citing refers to an incident which left Glasgow's Mark Bennett unconscious and being stretchered off.
"He got choke tackled and lost consciousness for a bit, but he has fully recovered now," said Glasgow coach Gregor Townsend after the game.
The citing hearing will be held in Cardiff on Wednesday.
O'Connor has been cited for an alleged action contrary to Law 10.4 (e), which pertains to dangerous tackling and 10.4(m), which deals with acts contrary to good sportsmanship.

Munchkin wrote:Ulster to contest Alan O'Connor citing (BBC SPORTS)

Ulster will contest the citing charge handed to lock Alan O'Connor for alleged foul play in Saturday's win over Glasgow at the Kingspan Stadium.
The citing refers to an incident which left Glasgow's Mark Bennett unconscious and being stretchered off.
"He got choke tackled and lost consciousness for a bit, but he has fully recovered now," said Glasgow coach Gregor Townsend after the game.
The citing hearing will be held in Cardiff on Wednesday.
O'Connor has been cited for an alleged action contrary to Law 10.4 (e), which pertains to dangerous tackling and 10.4(m), which deals with acts contrary to good sportsmanship.

Proper order Ulster!!!!
SUFTUM!!!

Notch wrote: The Owens call was the right one re. Lamont.


.............................................................I have been pretty clear and consistent. If there is foul play punish it, if there is an accident- they happen, unfortunately, and get on with the game. This applies equally to the O'Connor incident.

How about that dodgy bit in the middle - reckless?  Its a concept used in law with a tight definition - hence you can be done for careless driving, reckless driving or dangerous driving



The Lamont collision?


By the letter of the law its a penalty with yellow or red at the refs discretion - and guidance would suggest he is lucky to get off without sanction of a card of some sort.  However a couple of things distinguish this from other incidents of the type.  1) lamont had virtually if not actually stopped when the collision occurred and 2) an Ulster player played at least as big a part in the upturning.  Both these things have been seen to mitigate the seriousness of the offence.

IIRC there wasn'teven a penalty given - which is definitely wrong by my thinking.  Yellow possible.  Red would have been wrong.

I do wish the IRB would actually publish the guidance to refs in an easily accessible format.  It would solve a lot of these arguments I believe and lead to greater understanding

\"notch wrote: I have been pretty clear and consistent.

Yup - you have - we have crossed swords on this before but I believe you would argue the same no matter the team the player came from ( even if a little more passion appears when its an ulsterman )

I've only now reviewed the Ludik upending (I am a lazy sort) and Mr Owens got it more correct than I'd previously thought. It looks to me that SmallP not only had a hand in the upending but was the culprit and Lamont made very little contact at all. So where I believed Owens was right not to card Lamont but should have reversed the penalty I am now content that he was right to stick with the Glasgow penalty.

Nothing more to see here, move along

O'Connor gets 3 weeks ban.

Ulster Rugby:

Ulster second-row, Alan O'Connor, appeared today before an independent PRO12 rugby disciplinary committee, following the citing complaint made against him for a dangerous tackle under law 10.4(e) on Glasgow's Mark Bennett in the Guinness PRO12 match between Ulster and Glasgow on Saturday, 11 October 2014.

The disciplinary committee, chaired by Roger Morris (Wales) along with Rhian Williams (Wales) and Dr Barry O'Driscoll (Ireland), having viewed footage of the incident, considered evidence of the injuries suffered by Mr Bennett (who was left unconscious) and listened to representations made by and on behalf of the player, found that the incident was at the mid-range of the IRB sanctions for this type of offence, carrying a six-week sanction.

In the absence of any aggravating factors and in light of several compelling mitigating factors, including the player's exemplary previous playing record, the disciplinary committee applied a three-week reduction from the entry point and suspended the player from playing for three weeks.

Alan O'Connor is free to resume playing from Monday, 3 November 2014 and has the right of appeal.

Law 10.4(e): A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent's neck or head is dangerous play.

Disappointed for O'Connor not being able to play the next 2 games, but he will get plenty of game time once the ban expires, and maybe get a shot at the Scarlets back to backs.

What a joke.

We may as well change the whole sport to tag rugby wrapped in bubble wrap.
Accidents happen in every walk of life let alone a physical contact sport.

Utterly laughable.

Pete330v2 wrote:What a joke.

We may as well change the whole sport to tag rugby wrapped in bubble wrap.
Accidents happen in every walk of life let alone a physical contact sport.

Utterly laughable.

Thats a bit harsh considering the one angle seen on tv was pretty poor so the reasoning behind the judgement may not be fully understood

So we’re looking at the team that lined up against Glasgow bar Stevenson, Jackson and Gilroy to start?

Don't think there's been anything official on Trimble just yet. It might be a risk starting Jackson as he hasn't had much game time. I think they should go with Humphs for this one.

Hard to call any judgment a joke without knowing what they based it on. If they had no more info or camera angles than that it's a joke but it's highly probable there were other angles.

Seems the sportsmanship part has been thrown out but they seem to be saying he tackled him high. I'm sure more will come out later

I would be surprised if they didn't have other camera angles to view, and if any did show Bennett was tackled high, then fair enough. If not, then he shouldn't have been banned.

I think we all have to accept the impartiality and the judgement of the panel, they don't ban everyone who comes up before them, so it is fair to assume that they saw and heard enough evidence to make a fair judgement. If Ulster don't accept that then they do have the right of appeal.

At the end of the day this was a potentially very serious incident. I watch and follow a lot of rugby and don't ever recall seeing anyone chocked to the point of unconsciousness before. we could be discussing now whether we ever wanted to watch a rugby game again now instead of discussing a relatively minor ban.

I don't for a minute believe he meant to harm Bennett. This was not malicious in the way that eye gauging is but it was dangerous nevertheless, anything round the neck can be and needs to be flagged up. He is a young player, with we are told an exemplary record and I am happy with that mitigation as well. To me the ban seems about right. More important is the message that it sends out as to what is considered dangerous play.

Seemingly ludicrous decision based on what is in the public domain. Hope Glasgow are happy with themselves and hope Ulster appeal.

But I knew he would be banned rightly or wrongly. I can't remember the last time a player was cited and not banned. Pretty much every player who gets cited gets banned because when you go through any incident you can find a reason to ban.

We now go into the two most important games of our season so far with only two second rows available, one of whom hasn't started a competitive game this year. Cheers Glasgow. You vindictive *****.

Notch it's impossible to be that bitter without knowing what they based the decision on. If they are banning him based on the fact Bennett was injured but if they have clear evidence his tackle was dangerous and high you can't argue

Notch wrote:Seemingly ludicrous decision based on what is in the public domain. Hope Glasgow are happy with themselves and hope Ulster appeal.

But I knew he would be banned rightly or wrongly. I can't remember the last time a player was cited and not banned. Pretty much every player who gets cited gets banned because when you go through any incident you can find a reason to ban.

We now go into the two most important games of our season so far with only two second rows available, one of whom hasn't started a competitive game this year. Cheers Glasgow. You vindictive *****.

Well maybe one of your second row shouldn't have done something which caused him to get banned for 3 weeks, none of this is Glasgow's fault.

Standulstermen wrote:Notch it's impossible to be that bitter without knowing what they based the decision on. If they are banning him based on the fact Bennett was injured but if they have clear evidence his tackle was dangerous and high you can't argue

I do have a problem with it, in that you will see many tackles worse that do not get a card or a ban. To get a ban someone needs to single a player out and go after him.

We could have gotten Lamont banned for instance, if we chose to go after him.

cakeordeath wrote:

Notch wrote:Seemingly ludicrous decision based on what is in the public domain. Hope Glasgow are happy with themselves and hope Ulster appeal.

But I knew he would be banned rightly or wrongly. I can't remember the last time a player was cited and not banned. Pretty much every player who gets cited gets banned because when you go through any incident you can find a reason to ban.

We now go into the two most important games of our season so far with only two second rows available, one of whom hasn't started a competitive game this year. Cheers Glasgow. You vindictive *****.

Well maybe one of your second row shouldn't have done something which caused him to get banned for 3 weeks, none of this is Glasgow's fault.

Oh give over, the guy is 20 years old, tackling a smaller player, and has to react in an instant. It's not like he attacked him. We've had two players banned this season- a guy who got one week for punching and a complete rookie who got three weeks for an accident. How is that work? An intentional violent act is worse than this?

Young players make mistakes. The way Glasgow have gone after him for it is disgusting.

Raaymaker is in Belfast now. To early for the Leicester game, but a chance at making the bench for the Toulon game?